“And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah - give them tidings of a painful punishment.” (TMQ 9:34), which is an evidence for the unrestricted forbiddance of hoarding wealth. Though this verse was revealed to do with the People of the Book, its words are general, and we are addressed by them as is clear from the beginning of the verse which says:

“O you who have believed, indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of Allah. And those who hoard gold and silver.” (TMQ 9:34).

The evidence that the verse forbade the hoarding of gold and silver in a general, unrestricted way irrespective of whether the Zakah had been paid upon it or not is as follows:

First: the generality of this verse. The text of the verse, from both its wording and understanding, are evidence that the prohibition of hoarding wealth from gold and silver is a comprehensive prohibition. So, the opinion of permitting hoarding after the payment of Zakah is departure from the ruling of the verse whose indication is definite. This cannot be accredited except with evidence which would change the meaning of the verse or abrogate it, and there is no authentic text which takes it from its original meaning, and it is not possible that there could be evidence which takes it from its original meaning since it has a definite indication. So nothing remains except that there could be evidence which abrogates it, and there is no evidence which abrogates it. Therefore, its ruling remains confirmed, which is the forbiddance of hoarding wealth, even if Zakah was paid upon it; in other words, the unrestricted forbiddance of hoarding.

Second: Ahmad reported with an authentic chain from Abu Umamah who said:

“A man from the Ahl Al-Suffah died, and a Dinar was found in his garments (waist-wrap); the Messenger of Allahsaid: “he will be burnt”, then another died and two Dinars were found on him, and the Messenger of Allah said: “he will be burnt twice””, and this means that it is completely forbidden to hoard gold and silver, even if it was only two or even just one Dinar, as long as it is being hoarded, in other words, the storage of wealth without a need that it would be spent on. And the Messenger said that in respect to these two men because they were from those who used to live on charity and yet they had gold on them, and so he said: “he will be burnt” and: “he will be burnt twice”, alluding to His (swt) words:

“The Day when it will be heated in the fire of Hell and seared therewith will be their foreheads, their flanks, and their backs.” (TMQ 9:35), which is part of the verses of hoarding; in other words, he was alluding to the verses regarding hoarding. This is an evidence for the complete, comprehensive forbiddance of hoarding irrespective of whether it amounted to the value which Zakah should be paid upon or not, and irrespective of whether Zakah was paid upon it or not; so any hoarding is prohibited.

Third: The conjunction in His (swt) words:

(( وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ))

“And spend it not in the way of Allah.” (TMQ 9:34)contrasts with His (swt) words:

(( وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ ))

“And those who hoard gold and silver.” (TMQ 9:34) and thus indicating accordingly that the verse covers two rules: the first being the hoarding of wealth and the second the lack of spending in the path of Allah (swt). The text of the verse indicates the threat of a severe punishment connected to these two issues - in other words, for those who hoard gold and silver and those who do not spend them in the path of Allah (swt), then announce to them a severe punishment. Therefore, it becomes clear that he who does not hoard, but does not spend in the path of Allah (swt), is encompassed by the threat, and likewise the one who spends in the path of Allah (swt) and yet he hoards wealth is also encompassed by the threat. Al-Qurtubi said: “Whoever does not hoard, and withholds spending in the path of Allah, must also be the same”. The intention of the words:

(( فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ))

“in the way of Allah” in the verse is Jihad, since it is mentioned alongside spending. When the words: “in the way of Allah” are connected to spending, then their meaning is Jihad, unless there is an indication found which takes it away from that meaning. Accordingly, the words:

(( وَلَا يُنْفِقُونَهَا ))

“and spend it not” are not suitable as an evidence that if they hoard wealth and spend from it in the path of Allah (swt) they are not included in the punishment, since the meaning of the verse is not, and whoever hoards wealth in that they do not spend it in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a severe punishment, with the conjunction being explanatory and so, therefore, if the hoarded wealth was spent in the path of Allah (swt), the hoarder would not be punished. Rather, the meaning of the verse is that whoever hoards then announce to them a punishment and whoever does not spend in the path of Allah (swt) then announce to them a punishment. The conjunction is a conjunction of dissimilarity and not explanatory. Therefore, the forbiddance of hoarding is unrestricted, irrespective of whether some of it was spent in the path of Allah (swt) or not, and the issue of the forbiddance of hoarding is a different issue than the forbiddance of not spending in the path of Allah (swt). Accordingly, it is clearly seen that the verse forbids hoarding wealth even if Zakah had been paid upon it and even if some had been spent in the path of Allah (swt).

Fourth: Bukhari reported from Zayd b. Wahb who said: “I passed by Abu Dharr in Al-Rabtha, so I asked him: What brought you to this place? He replied: We were in Ash-Sham where I had a dispute with Mu’awiyah over:

“And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah.” (TMQ 9:34) and so Mu’awiyah said: “This was revealed concerning the People of the Book” so I said: “It was revealed concerning them and us”, and this was the issue between us. So he wrote to Uthman complaining about me, and so Uthman wrote to me telling me to come to Madinah. I went there and the people gathered around me as though they had never seen me before. I mentioned this to Uthman, and he said: “If you wish, you can stay close”. This is what led me to this place, and if an Abyssinian presided over me, I would listen and obey”. Therefore, the difference between Abu Dharr and Mu’awiyah was regarding who the verse was revealed about, and not its meaning, and if Mu’awiyah or ‘Uthman (ra) had an authentic narration which mentioned that if Zakah was paid from a wealth it would not be considered a hoard, Mu’awiyah would have used it against Abu Dharr’s opinion and Abu Dharr would have been silenced or ‘Uthman (ra) would have used it to silence him. This indicates that the generality of the verse and its unrestricted nature was not the cause of difference between Mu’awiyah and Abu Dharr, and between Mu’awiyah and ‘Uthman (ra), and it is not confirmed that they had a narration which opposed that.

Accordingly it is clear that the verse is general covering all gold and silver, irrespective of whether some of it was used in Jihad, and whether Zakah had been paid upon it, and whether it reached the amount required for Zakah to become obligatory or not. Therefore, all hoarding is forbidden (Haram).

Those who permit hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it have no authentic evidence and all of their evidences are not considered valid due to their weakness and the poor chains of narrations. Even though Bukhari wrote a section entitled: “Chapter – It is not a hoard when Zakah has been paid upon it”, he did not produce a single narration which indicates the heading, since not even a single one was authentic to him. All the narrations used as evidence for the permissibility of hoarding once Zakah had been paid upon it are not authentic except for a single one of them. This narration is the narration regarding jewellery which was reported by Umm Salamah, and all of the other narrations which were reported in this issue are considered as lies, and have been criticised from both the angle of the chain and text of the narration.

With respect to the narration of Umm Salamah that they use as an evidence to prove the permissibility of hoarding gold and silver if Zakah is paid upon it, it is as follows: Abu Dawud reported from the chain of Thabit b. Ajlan from Ataa from Umm Salamah who said:

“I used to wear gold ornaments. I asked: Is that a treasure (Kanz), Messenger of Allah? He replied: whatever reaches a quantity on which Zakah is payable is not a treasure (Kanz) when the Zakah is paid”. The word used in the narration is Al-Awdhah, which is a type of jewellery. It is mentioned in the dictionary of Al-Muhit: “Al-Wadeh…and it is silver jewellery and its plural is Awdhah”. This narration is weak because Thabit b. Ajlan is controversial when he is the single narrator in a narration. Al-Dhahabi said regarding Thabit in his biography: From the narrations which are refuted from Thabit is the narration of ‘Attab from ‘Ata’ from Umm Salamah”. Despite that, even if it was authentic, it is limited to the jewellery which women wear, and is not considered to be a hoard if its value reaches the Nisab, and subsequently the Zakah on it had been paid. This is the evidence for the payment of Zakah upon jewellery and it being made an exception from the generality of hoarding. This narration is not suitable to be used as an evidence for the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it, from two angles:

Firstly: This narration came as an answer to a question, and every text which is an answer to a question, or came regarding a specific subject, is necessarily limited to what the question was about, and to that specific subject, and it is not considered general for everything since the words are connected to the question, or in other words, to the specific subject, and so they are specific and limited to that question and subject and do not apply beyond them. Accordingly, the narration is specific to jewellery, and so if Zakah is paid upon jewellery it is permitted to hoard it and anything else is not permitted. It cannot be argued that the Shari’ah rule is: “the consideration is given to the generality of the words and not to the specification of the cause” and the words here are general and so they are not specific to jewellery and rather they encompass jewellery and anything else. This cannot be argued because this rule is for the cause, and not for the reply to a question or a specific subject. It is a correct rule and its text indicates that it is a rule for the cause and nothing else, since it says: “not to the specification of the cause”, and there is a difference between the cause and the specified subject, and between the cause and the reply to a question.

The cause is when an issue happens and then a Shari’ah rule is revealed regarding it, such as the case for the revelation of the verse:

“It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair.” (TMQ 33:36). The cause for the revelation of this verse was that the Messenger engaged his niece Zaynab to his servant Zayd, then her brother ‘Abd Allah b. Jahsh refused, and so Allah (swt) revealed this verse. Therefore, this is the cause of the revelation, and the rule: “the consideration is given to the generality of the words and not to the specification of the cause” applies to it. Another example is the cause for the revelation of the verse regarding inheritance; the Messenger visited Jabir b. Abd Allah while he was ill and asked the Messenger of Allah: “How should I deal with my property? What should I do with my property?”, and the Messenger did not reply until the verse of inheritance was revealed (agreed upon narration from Jabir) and so this was the cause of the revelation.

In the same way, all the causes of revelation are of this type, and it is upon this that the mentioned rule applies, which is different to the reply to a question, and to a specific subject. Since the specific subject is the issue that was being talked about, and the issue that was being sought when the rule came regarding it, and the rule did not originate by itself, so, therefore, it is limited to that subject. In the same manner the words of the Messenger can be connected to a specific question, and so the words used in a reply to a question are limited to that question.

“While we were sitting with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Prophet! I have been ruined." Allah's Prophet asked what was the matter with him. He replied "I had sexual intercourse with my wife while I was fasting." Allah's Prophet asked him, "Can you afford to manumit a slave?" He replied in the negative. Allah's Prophet asked him, "Can you fast for two successive months?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet asked him, "Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet kept silent and while we were in that state, a big basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet. He asked, "Where is the questioner?" He replied, "I (am here)." The Prophet said (to him), "Take this (basket of dates) and give it in charity." The man said, "Should I give it to a person poorer than I? By Allah; there is no family between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains who are poorer than I." The Prophet smiled till his premolar teeth became visible and then said, 'Feed your family with it." when we were sitting down with the Prophet, a man came and said O Messenger of Allah I am destroyed. And so the Prophet asked him what did you do? He said I deliberately had intercourse with my wife during Ramadan. And so he said to him: “Do you have a slave you can free? He said no. So he asked him: Are you able to fast two consecutive months? He said no. So he said: Could you feed sixty poor people? He said no. So the Prophet waited, and in the meantime someone brought him a branch with a date and so he said: Where is the questioner? The man replied: Here. So he said: Take this and give it in charity. The man said: Upon someone poorer than me O Messenger of Allah? I swear by Allah! There is no household poorer than me around. And so the Prophet laughed until his teeth could be seen and then said: Feed your family with it”.

The answer of the Messenger is specific to the question asked, and so the words: “free a slave” are connected to the question of the Bedouin. Another example is the report that when he was asked about the permissibility of selling dates if they get dried, and so the Prophet asked:

“Will the fresh dates shrink when they are dry?"They said yes, so he forbade that?”and they replied yes, and so he said: “so he forbade that” reported by Abu Ya’la with this wording from Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas, and Al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban authenticated it. So, the answer of the Messenger is specific to what he has been asked, in other words, selling ripe dates for dried ones, and so his words: “so he forbade that” are connected to the question. This is not a cause for the rule, rather it is a reply to a question, and there is a big difference between both. Accordingly, the general wording which comes as a reply to a question is not a cause for the rule, it is only an explanation for the matter in question, and if general wording came as legislating a new rule for an issue that happened, then the legislation of the rule would be general, and the occurrence of the issue was the cause for the legislation of the rule. So the wide difference between the cause and the answer to a question becomes apparent. Therefore, the general rule encompasses its cause and anything else, whereas the answer to a question is specific to the question, since the words of the Messengerare connected to it.

As for the question to the Messenger regarding the sea water and hisanswer:

«هُوَ الطَّهُورُ مَاؤُهُ الْحِلُّ مَيْتَتُهُ»

“Its water is purifying and its dead (animals) are lawful (to eat)” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi from Abu Hurayrah and Abu ‘Isa said the narration is Hasan Sahih), it is also specific to what was asked about, which was the sea water, but the Messengerexplained more than he was asked about to the questioner. It still remains as the answer of the Messenger specific to what he was asked about, which was sea water, and it is limited to that. In the same manner when he was asked about the: “Budha’ah”, well water, and he said:

«إِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورٌ»

“water is pure” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri, and he said it is Hasan and Ahmad authenticated it), which is also connected to the question, and so he replied to the question about the well water but his reply to the questioner encompassed more than what he was asked about, yet it still remains as the answer of the Messenger connected to the question. So hewas asked about ablution from sea water, and his answer was general encompassing ablution, Ghusl (ablution from major impurities) and more. In the book Al-Imam Sharh Al-Ilmam it is written: “why did he not answer then with yes when they said: “can we make ablution with it?”. We say – because it would have been restricted to the situation of necessity, and this is not the case. Also, it would be understood from the restriction of the answer to: “yes” that only ablution could be made from it, and the remainder of impurities and dirt could not be purified by it”.

Therefore, the answer of the Messenger regarding the sea water and well water is limited to what he was asked about, and not general to everything. However, he answered the questioner with more than what he asked, but still in the subject of his question, and the discussion is not about the conformity of the answer to the question, such that it could be said that the answer of the Messenger was more general than the question of the questioner. Rather the discussion is that the answer was limited to the subject matter of the question, and was limited to that without going beyond it to another subject, and not about the conformity of the answer to the question. Shawkani mentioned in Nayl Al-Awtar: “and from the benefits of the narration is the legitimacy of giving extra in the answer to the question, in order to limit the benefit (from a direct answer) and the lack of necessity to be restricted”. Bukhari wrote a chapter on the issue entitled: “Chapter – who answers the questioner with more than what he asked”. And he mentioned the narration of Ibn Umar that:

“A man asked the Prophet: "What (kinds of clothes) should a Muhrim (a Muslim intending to perform `Umra or Hajj) wear? He replied, "He should not wear a shirt, a turban, trousers, a head cloak or garment scented with saffron or Wars (kinds of perfumes). And if he has no slippers, then he can use Khuffs (socks made from thick fabric or leather) but the socks should be cut short so as to make the ankles bare.”, so it was though he was asked about a situation of choice and so he answered it, and then he gave extra information about a situation of exigency, which is not unusual to the question since a travel may lead to that”. This all indicates that the reply is limited by the question; notice his words: “not unusual to the question”, irrespective of whether the reply was in conformity with what the questioner asked or was more than he asked, the answer is specific to the question. For this reason the question of Umm Salamah was regarding jewellery and so the answer of the Messenger is specific to jewellery, and is limited to it, and does not apply to anything beyond it, because it is an answer to a question and not a cause for the revelation of a rule. Accordingly, the use of this narration as an evidence to prove the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it has been shown to be invalid, since the narration is specific to jewellery.

The second of the two reasons: the verse of Zakah is general for every hoard, and the narration of Umm Salamah is specific to jewellery, and so the narration would be a specification for the generality of the verse. Therefore, the hoarding that is forbidden is the hoarding of anything other than jewellery, whereas it is not prohibited to hoard jewellery if the Zakah on it is paid. It is not possible from any angle for the narration to be general to every type of hoard, and the simplest evidence that it is not general is that if it was then it would be an abrogation of the verse, since the verse would be general as would the narration and so it would be an abrogation for the verse. And the narration is an Ahad (singular) narration and so it is inconclusive whereas the verse is definite, and the narrations cannot abrogate the Quran even if they were Mutawatir (multiple chains of narrations such that the narration becomes definitely confirmed). This is because the Quran is definitely confirmed by words and meaning, and we worship Allah (swt) by its words and meaning, whereas the Mutawatir narration is definitely confirmed from its meaning and not its words, and we do not worship Allah (swt) with its words, and so it cannot abrogate the Quran. If this is the case for the Mutawatir narration, then what about the singular one? And so accordingly the use of this narration to prove the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah is paid upon it has been proven invalid, due to the impermissibility of Quran being abrogated by a narration.

Those who permit the hoarding of gold and silver if Zakah has been paid upon it, claim that the evidence for its permissibility is that the verse forbidding hoarding is abrogated by the verses which made Zakah obligatory, and that those verses abrogated the verse of hoarding by obligating Sadaqah, in other words, Zakah, upon it. The reply to this is that Zakah was made obligatory upon the Muslims in the second year after Hijrah, whereas the verse of hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after Hijrah, and what is revealed earlier does not abrogate what is revealed later. On top of that, it is imperative that there is an evidence which indicates that this verse is an abrogation for the other verse in order for it to be abrogation, and if there is no evidence found which indicates that abrogation, then it is not considered to be an abrogation. Abrogation is the cancellation and lifting of the rule derived from a previous text by a subsequent text, and the cancellation of the previous rule by a subsequent text is conditional upon the subsequent text mentioning that it is an abrogation for the previous rule, such as his words:

«نَهَيْتُكُمْ عَنْ زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ فَزُورُوهَا»

“(In the past) I forbade you from visiting graves, but visit them now.” (reported by Muslim from Buraydah)and His (swt) words:

“O you who have believed, when you [wish to] privately consult the Messenger, present before your consultation a charity. That is better for you and purer. But if you find not [the means] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (TMQ 58:12). This verse enjoins spending charity when coming for consultation if possible, and then another verse comes and abrogates it:

“Have you feared to present before your consultation charities? Then when you do not and Allah has forgiven you, then [at least] establish prayer and give Zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger.” (TMQ 58:13). This verse, therefore, lifts the injunction to pay charity when coming for private consultation. The narration explains explicitly within its text that it is an abrogation, and the verse explains it is an abrogation through indication by His (swt) words:

“Have you feared to present before your consultation charities?”, and so it is imperative that the text includes something that indicates that it is an abrogation from the previous text, either explicitly or through implicit indication. It is not sufficient for abrogation that there is an apparent conflict between the two texts, because there is no conflict between verses of Quran. As for what some Scholars have said, that these verses suggest conflict between them and claim that they are abrogated, the text of those verses themselves are explicit in the absence of any conflict and reconciliation between the texts is clear and there is nothing in the verses which indicates abrogation. Therefore, it is imperative that the subsequent text which is claimed to be an abrogation for a previous one includes something, either explicitly or by indication, that proves it is an abrogation. There is nothing in the verses of Zakah which indicate from near or far that they are an abrogation for the verse regarding hoarding, whether explicit or by an indication, and so they are not an abrogation for it. Even those who say that conflict between a subsequent and previous text makes the subsequent text an abrogation for the previous one, do not say that the verses of Zakah abrogate the verse regarding hoarding because there is nothing that suggests a conflict between the two, since the verses of Zakah are an address to pay Zakah, and the verse regarding hoarding is an address to call for the absence of hoarding. There is no conflict between these two issues, since there could be payment of Zakah and hoarding, and there could be the absence of payment of Zakah and the absence of hoarding. This is an additional reason why there is no abrogation even according to this opinion, and so from what angle is this abrogation claimed? Accordingly, the fact that the Zakah was legislated in the second year after hijrah and the verse regarding hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after hijrah, in other words, seven years after Zakah had been obligated, and the fact that the verses of Zakah do not encompass, explicitly or through indication, what is necessary to indicate that they are an abrogation for the verse regarding hoarding, and above and beyond that there is no conflict between them, in other words, there is no conflict between the verses of Zakah and the verse regarding hoarding, therefore, the claim that the verse regarding hoarding is abrogated is a false claim, and so it is rejected.

Those who claim that it is permitted to hoard gold and silver if Zakah has been paid upon them say that the evidence for its permissibility is what has been reported in Bukhari: “from Ibn Umar who said that a Bedouin asked him about the verse:

(( وَالَّذِينَ يَكْنِزُونَ الذَّهَبَ وَالْفِضَّةَ ))

“And those who hoard gold and silver” (TMQ 9:34) : Whoever hoards it, and not pay its Zakah, so woe unto them; that was before the revelation of the verse of Zakah, and so when that was revealed Allah made it as a purification for the wealth”. It cannot be argued that this narration from Ibn Umar is a specification for the Quran by the Sunnah, or an abrogation of the Quran by the Sunnah. Rather this narration is an authentic information regarding that abrogation, and so it is from the category of abrogation of Quran by Quran, since what abrogated the Quran in this case was the Quran because Zakah was made obligatory by the Quran and not the Sunnah, and so it is obligatory to accept it since it is an authentic narration which reports that the verse is abrogated by another verse, and so the forbiddance of hoarding is abrogated. Therefore, whatever has had Zakah paid upon it can be hoarded.

The answer to this is from four angles:

First: This is an Ahad narration which claims that the verse has been abrogated, and so as it is Ahad it is indefinite like any other Ahad narration, whereas the verse itself is definite, and what is definite is preferred to what is indefinite and so the verse is preferred due to the absence of anything abrogating it, and so it is acted upon due to the absence of abrogation because it is preferred and the claim of abrogation is rejected.

Second: The informing about the abrogation of a verse is like a reported narration which included a rule which abrogates another rule that was found in a verse of the Quran, so in the same manner that the narration cannot abrogate the verse even if it includes what indicates its abrogation, in the same way the information from Ibn Umar is not an abrogation for a verse of Quran simply by his statement that it is abrogated.

Third: Ibn Umar did not inform that the verse was abrogated as information from the Messenger; in other words, he did not report that the Messenger said that the verse is abrogated. Rather he was giving his opinion that the verse has been abrogated, since when the Bedouin asked him about the verse he replied that it has been abrogated and he did not relate that the Messenger had informed him that it had been abrogated, and so it is the opinion of Ibn Umar that the verse was abrogated by Zakah. In other words, it was Ibn Umar’s understanding that Zakah abrogated this verse, and it was not a narration from the Messenger, and the opinion of Ibn Umar is not considered to be a Shari’ah evidence since the opinion of a companion is not considered to be a Shari’ah evidence for a Shari’ah rule, let alone as an abrogation of Quran.

Fourth: Zakah was obligated in the second year after Hijrah, and the verse which forbade hoarding was revealed in the ninth year after Hijrah, and so how can the earlier rule of Zakah abrogate a verse which was revealed seven years later? And therefore this narration is rejected from its text (Dirayyatan).

These four angles are without a doubt sufficient to show that using this narration as evidence is invalid, and to invalidate the claim that the verse is abrogated, and accordingly this narration is not suitable to be used as a proof that it is permissible to hoard if Zakah had been paid upon it.

And those who permit hoarding if the Zakah is paid upon it say that the evidence is that the Muslim is not accountable financially beyond Zakah, and the evidences for this are many, such as the agreed upon narration of the Messenger to the Bedoiun:

“he was asking about Islam…till he said: And the Messenger of Allah (saw) told him about the Zakah (obligatory charity). The inquirer asked: "Am I obliged to pay anything besides this?" The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, "No, but whatever you pay voluntarily out of your own free will.” and what the Messenger said:

«لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَقٌّ سِوَى الزَّكَاةِ»

“There is nothing due on wealth other then Zakah.” (reported by Ibn Maja from Fatimah Bint Qays), and the narration in Tirmidhi that he considered Hasan from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophetsaid:

«إِذَا أَدَّيْتَ زَكَاةَ مَالِكَ فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ»

“When you pay the Zakah you have fulfilled what is required of you”. These narrations indicate that there is nothing upon a Muslim’s wealth except for Zakah, so the words of the Messenger:

«لَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ»

“Nothing else is upon you” and:

«لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَقٌّ»

“there is nothing due on wealth” and:

«فَقَدْ قَضَيْتَ مَا عَلَيْكَ»

“you have fulfilled what is required of you” are general and so they encompass anything obligated from wealth. And this, therefore, indicates the permissibility of hoarding as long as the Zakah that is obligatory upon the Muslim is paid.

The answer to this is that the forbiddance of hoarding is an issue independent from Zakah, and the information mentioned prevents the obligating of any other rights in addition to Zakah, which does not prevent the presence of additional rules connected to wealth. Hoarding is from the rules relating to wealth and not from the obligatory rights upon the wealth. So Allah (swt) did not impose any right other than Zakah over the wealth owned by the Muslim from the angle of it being wealth, but He (swt) legislated other rules for wealth which are not from the rules of Zakah, such as the rules of interest in gold and silver, and those relating to exchange of gold and silver, and those relating to gold and silver found buried, which are all from the rules regarding wealth. The rules regarding wealth found in the ground are from the financial rules like the rest of the rules, and they are not from the obligatory rights upon the wealth, and so accordingly these narrations have nothing to do with the hoarding of wealth, and consequently these narrations do not indicate the absence of the forbiddance of hoarding wealth if the Zakah on it had been paid, and, therefore, the use of these narrations as evidence has been invalidated.

This is with the knowledge that the two last narrations are disputed over as Al-Hafiz considered them both weak in Al-Talkhis, and especially the narration from Ibn Maja, since it is weak with a text that is conflicting.

Ibn Maja reported in his Sunan: Ali Bin Muhammad told us from Yahya Bin Adam from Sharik from Abu Hamza from Al-Sha’bi from Fatimah Bint Qays that she heard the Messenger say:

«لَيْسَ فِي الْمَالِ حَقٌّ سِوَى الزَّكَاةِ»

“There is nothing due on wealth other than Zakah”.

But Al-Tirmidhi reported it in his Sunan: Muhammad b. Ahmad Bin Muddawiya from Al-Aswad Bin Amir from Sharik from Abu Hamza from Al-Sha’bi from Fatimah Bint Qays who said I asked, or the Prophet was asked, about Zakah, and so he said:

«إِنَّ فِي الْمَالِ لَحَقًّا سِوَى الزَّكَاةِ»

“Indeed there is a duty on wealth aside from Zakah”.

Its chain confirming, and rejecting the right except for Zakah is weak, and the weakness from Sharik though he is trustworthy but he had a bad memory, and from Abu Hamza who is agreed to be considered weak due to his contradictions and bad memory, and for this reason he mentioned the narration once confirming and once rejecting.

These are all the evidences of those who say that hoarding is permitted as long as Zakah has been paid upon it, in other words, all the evidences from which it is possible to find a semblance of an evidence that indicates the permissibility of hoarding if Zakah had been paid upon it, and they are flimsy evidences, and what is apparent is the effort to catch any way of using them as evidence, and it may be possible to say that there is nothing which justifies their use as evidence. The evidence that the verse regarding hoarding was revealed seven years after the obligation of Zakah is enough to explain the invalidity of using these evidences as proof. Therefore, it is clear that the verse is explicit that hoarding is comprehensively forbidden (Haram) even if Zakah had been paid upon it.

One issue remains which is: what is intended by the words hoarding (Al-Kanz) in the verse? The answer is that what is meant by hoarding is collecting wealth on top of wealth without a need. Hoarding linguistically means to collect wealth on top of wealth and to preserve it, and wealth is hoarded in other words, collected, and the hoard is anything which has been collected together, under or over ground. It is mentioned in the Al-Muheet dictionary: “Al-Kanz: the buried wealth, and it is hoarded and gold and silver and whatever is used to protect wealth”. Imam Abu Ja’far Al-Tabari said: “Al-Kanz: Everything that is collected together, irrespective if it was held under or over ground”, and the one who wrote Al-‘ain said: “and it was stored”. This is the meaning of Al-Kanz (the hoard) linguistically, and the Quran is explained by the linguistic meaning alone, unless the Shari’ah related a Shari’ah meaning for something, in which case it is explained by its Shari’ah meaning. And the word Al-Kanz has no authentic Shari’ah meaning related for it, and so it must be explained by its linguistic meaning alone, which is that simply collecting wealth on top of wealth without a need, for its own sake, is considered to be the blameworthy hoarding for which Allah (swt) promised a painful punishment for the one who carried it out. Therefore, burying wealth means to keep it preserved needlessly, and to store the wealth in other words, not having a need for it, since if wealth is for spending it is not needed to be buried or stored. Accordingly the intention behind the words hoarding of wealth in the verse is to store it without a need for which it is spent, and so it applies to every type of storing of gold and silver without a need.